Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
GA candidate.svg
Shortcuts

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles. Please only put one submission in at a time.

Articles that are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles that are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for good articles[change source]

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc. 

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~

Minecraft[change source]

Minecraft (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I think this article fits some of the requirements. It is somewhat in-depth, and has relevant information. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all ready.
1.  Done Yup, of course it follows this.
2. X mark.svg Not done There is no significant mention of reception, which could be mentioned.
3. X mark.svg Not done The last few edits are from vandals and reverts. The last edit you've made was last month, and that was also reverting a GFE. I don't think this counts.
4.  Done Yup, that looks good.
5. X mark.svg Not done, the last few edits are reverts from vandals
6. X mark.svg Not done, There are multiple redlinks
7. X mark.svg Not done, while the two images are fine, more could be provided
8.  Done, no problems, though more citations could be provided, see also 9
9. X mark.svg Not done The entire gameplay and community sections, which take up pretty much the entire article, has not a single reference. Needs lots more references to qualify.
Yeah, this needs some work before it'll qualify to even be PGA, much less GA. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrMeAndMrMe

1. Too much unreferenced content.
2. Some references are not formatted. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance and I noticed sections without references. That's a no-go for a GA, maybe work on adding some reliable sources first :). A positive note is that most of the sections (currently) looks good with information IMO, maybe add a reception section per MrMeAndMrMe. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farn-Sasan[change source]

Farn-Sasan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Fits requirements 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9, in my opinion. It is fairly short but it is thorough on all of the relevant information on the topic with a wide variety of references. I will be done with requirement 6 by tomorrow. What(other than requirement 6) should be improved? Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lot of work that needs to be done. First there are a ton of red links that needs to be changed into blue. Also, there are a lot of fixes and improvements when it comes to wording and flow of the sentences that needs to be done. Third sentence in the page reads "He is only because of the coins he issued", which doesn't make much sense.--BRP ever 07:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BRPever What doesn't make sense about that sentence? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrMeAndMrMe He is only ??? because of the coins he issued. What is he only because of the coins he issued? -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. Didn't mean to forget a word. Fixed. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have improved the wording and flow of the article. It now makes significantly more sense. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also consider mentioning the things that should be fixed on the article talk page. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that I have fixed the issues given. Only thing now is that more than one person needs to edit the article, in my opinion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very ordinary page. I don't think there is anything about it which is not bettered by 100+ pages. It's just egocentricity to put up an average page for GA. I'm very much against us putting up ordinary pages for discussion here because they leach time from a few editors who are already overworked. (I've deliberately not noticed who put it up for consideration) Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. People don't have to review GAs. There is no obligation. There isn't as much coverage with Farn-Sasan as some other people, but there still is a very large amount of information there. Good Articles are not based off of size, they're based off of in-depthness and remember that good articles are there so people know if the article is something that they should trust. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go on a limb and say I kind of agree with Macdonald-ross. I agree in terms that this article does look like a very ordinary page, while yes there's no "size" recommendation/requirement, if an article that has ample and extremely thorough information that article in turn would be relatively long (not massive, but pretty decently long). On a side note, I'm surprised it's even a GA on enwiki with it's short size per their GA standards seen on their main page. I can't see myself supporting an article for GA status that, according to the nominator, doesn't have much coverage. But I'd also like to say that I believe this nom was done in good faith and I don't believe it to be egocentric. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, have a mod close it. I'll work on it for a couple months or so, but I suppose it's not that ready yet. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 01:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size is not a criterion for classifying an article as good. According to WP:GA?, p. 2, "The article must be fairly complete. Usually, articles should be a few kilobytes long, although shorter pages may also be nominated". The "fairly complete" is something that needs to be analyzed individually in relation to each theme. In the case of King Farn-Sasan, unfortunately there is not much record about his history. So that point has to be based on the amount of material available, based on what is known about him. If all possible information are available on the article, then it can be considered complete. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.WagnerC That is a fair point. Do you have any critique of the article? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MrMeAndMrMe To me the article looks good considering that on enwiki it is classified as GA. But history is not an area of study I have an affinity. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently[change source]

Willis Tower[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Willis Tower (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The architectural gem in Chicago, the Willis Tower's article has been properly expanded with simplification work (with the average readability consensus of 7-8th grade), properly sourced and has well fleshed out information of the structure throughout the tower. No red links and every source has been thoroughly vetted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good start, I think you are almost there. I made two or three minor changes. The only thing that I can say is that reading fluency in the second half of the article seems to be a little worse than in the first part (Please re-check with a native speaker?)--Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eptalon: Thank you for your feedback! From what specific second half? Is it from Naming rights and onwards? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say starting at the section 'After opening'. But again: The only thing I can say is that fluencey seems to be less. I can't pinpoint you to things to actually change. Also keep in mind, I am not a native speaker, so my view may be flawed. --Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: Gotcha. I've already reworked some sentences since your first comment was made. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since the nominator have multiple proposals. Not only this is breaking the guidelines, it also stresses the system. We also cannot let him get away with this since it would be unfair for other nominators. Feel free to contact me once all but one proposal is removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I feel that this article might be less complicated than Ardern's for GA, so I think I'll withdraw Ardern's GA nom and focus on Willis Tower being promoted to GA. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, I would archive the section for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: Unless you think otherwise? Which one do you think has the best shot? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should choose it for yourselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BRPever: & @CactiStaccingCrane: I appreciate and really thank you warmly for your Ardern GA comments and edits, but Willis Tower I feel might have a better chance (less controversial in terms of article quality) at getting GA promoted. Whenever you can could you give it a look/provide comments? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I will! However, you still have 3 more proposals, 2 at PVGA and 1 here. You should get rid of two of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @CactiStaccingCrane:! I think having one at VGA (Kennedy) and one at GA (Willis Tower) is not bad let alone should hinder a nomination. Having two under each (VGA: Carter & Kennedy and GA: Willis Tower & Ardern) I can see why that'd be overwhelming. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of info at the top of this section that said You may have one nomination open at a time only. I think that this would apply to both proposals as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: I took it as one nomination per status like one nom for VGA and one nom for GA. The full thing says "To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. With this context it is saying one nom for solely GA status not both VGA and GA which is why I think one nom here (Willis Tower) and one nom VGA (Jackie Kennedy) should be good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I has given my opinion about this here CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! Are we all good in having Willis Tower for GA and Jackie Kennedy for VGA? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think yes! However, do keep in mind that more proposal meant the reviewing process is slower. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: Yeah, I've gotten use to that :( However as long as I get some feedback and keep this nomination from going stale (getting some votes/feedback) I'm okay with that! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon @CactiStaccingCrane, I went through the article and came across no major flaws. It seems to meet all the GA criteria. Do you guys still have any concerns? If not, I will go ahead and promote this one. If there are any concerns, we can discuss them here. Thanks-BRP ever 03:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever: Thank you for your feedback and edits. I'm open to fix on any issues and get this article promoted soon! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No major concerns, although I gonna do some minor touchups. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: & @BRPever: Thank you very much for this feedback, I cannot express my gratitude for you both! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Consensus to Promote. The discussion has been open for over three months now and it looks like all the concerns have been already been resolved, so I am promoting this one. Minor changes if/where necessary can be made to the page at any time, and major changes can be discussed on the talk page before adding it to the article. Thanks -BRP ever 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Sentō[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sentō (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is about the most popular bath in Japan. I created the article and Darkfrog24 did the main work. Add authoritative sources, many illustrations, no red-links, a pretty simple language. Frontfrog (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets our criteria. It's about a culturally important thing. It's got a balance of sources, good images, good text, gets to the point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the text through a reading ease gizmo [1]
  • Flesch Reading Ease score: 75.4 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Gunning Fog: 7.5 (text scale): fairly easy to read.
  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 6.2: Sixth Grade.
  • The Coleman-Liau Index: 6: Sixth Grade
  • The SMOG Index: 5.9: Sixth Grade
  • Automated Readability Index: 4.8: Grade level: 8-9 yrs. old (Fourth and Fifth graders)
  • Linsear Write Formula : 6.8
Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have either removed or found different sourcing for all the facts attributed to Cool JP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment at Coldplay nomination: I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there are only 1 proposal, I honestly think the article is pretty good for GA. Lots of information has been extracted, and show an almost complete picture of sentō. Overall, I would support this proposal for GA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a really good start. However, I think with an article around that size, that there would be a few more references, so in short I don't think the article is ready yet, but keep up the good work! --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@つがる The article looks properly sourced. In topics like this, which is generally just facts, lengthy reference lists is usually just plus. Are they any statements that you would like to see more appropriately sourced?-- BRP ever 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps I am being too picky here, I don't object then. I just thought it would be better to have a few more references. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Concensus to Promote. After the discussion that lasted for more than 3 months, there doesn't seem to be any remaining concern against promoting the article. On the contrary, there are several comments in favor of promoting the article.-BRP ever 00:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Kabuki[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kabuki (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I’ve looked at this article and found it interesting. I meets all of the requirements for a GA, however, at the bottom was a dance navigation box that could be eliminated since it is almost red. It started as a school project in 2009 and has developed since then. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe need some more sources but in general it's a wonderful article. Frontfrog (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's a very interesting topic, but I'm not sure why it is being proposed. It is virtually unchanged for the last six months. Is the proposer saying it has been of the standard all along? The whole point of the discussion is to improve the articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at it today. There's a lot of work needed of the copy-editor type. One example: "Shōwa period" was present without the nihongo flat thing on top. And when the thingy is in, it links OK. Without, it doesn't link. Obviously we can look at it from the point of view of non-Japanese speakers. It uses American English spellings for what is an international topic. Anyway, there's going to be lots of detailed copy-editing needed here, so it awaits someone prepared to do it. It cannot be promoted without that work. Macdonald-ross (talk)
One change needed is to delete the dance box for a theatre box. It should be obvious that kabuki is primarily a form of theatre. In any event, large boxes should be set closed rather than open as they tend to distract the reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who will undertake to edit this article if PotsdamLamb left SE Wiki? Frontfrog (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving the copyediting a go, but the section on commonly used kabuki words has no sources and I can't tell what's going on with it. To be clearer: The information does not make sense, and without a source to click on, I can't fix it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it and I think it can be longer (especially in history section). And need to add references. Then the article will be easier to promote. Frontfrog (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to say that I added information in history section and sub-headings. Will be add sources some time later and info. I'm still a little busy. Will be glad if someone help with expansion. Frontfrog (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it won't work.... Frontfrog (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea is a good one, however the article still needing some work. I am still working on Kimono, after that I will fix the Kabuki one, --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found many problems with the references:
  • Kabuki. Independent administrative agency Japan Art Council. Retrieved on 7 July 2009. too vague, where is it? Is it a website, or a place you can visit? What exactly is Kabuki? Is it the name of the place, or the agency's building?
  • Fukube, Satio, Hirosue, Mamoru and Tomita, Tetsunosuke. (2000). Kyougenziten. Heibonsya, Japan. too vague.
  • BIGLOBE encyclopedia. NEC BIGLOBE. Retrieved on 26 June 2009. citing another encyclopedia is strictly not allowed here.
  • SmaSTATION-5. TV-Asahi. Retrieved on 4th June 2009. I cannot verify this, but I assume that the author don't try to be deceiving.
  • Theater Guide Online. Theater Guide. Retrieved on 9th July 2009. super vague, per above
  • Encyclopedia. Heibonsya, Japan. (1996) above
  • Inside Japan. Kabuki no Ohanashi (Hibino, Saito). Retrieved on 20 May 2009. Probably ok, but I don't know what fact is it trying to support CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the reference section need extensive editing to be able to pass GA. Other than that, great job on your text and grammar! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, check [2].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Coldplay[change source]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Coldplay (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It's good written but has a lot of red links. Maybe it will not so big problem for future. Frontfrog (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of content is missing actually. we need to start by updating the article first. The recent albums and events need to be added, so I would suggest withdrawing this nomination and working on the article a bit more before bringing it here again.-BRP ever 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frontfrog I think you aren't intentional about this, but nominating many articles to PGA and PVGA are not a good thing to do. You should only have one nomination open at the time. I suggest you close this nomination since it would takes a ton of time to make it good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactStaccingCrane I think Coldplay may be not promoted. But Sento and Neptune need to save. Especially Sento. :Frontfrog (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should propose only 1 article at the time. After a proposal is finished, you can move to another one. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only 1, then sento. Frontfrog (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, archiving the rest now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, check [3].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages[change source]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_good_articles&oldid=8192771"